Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SamuraiJack

Pathfinder Version 2

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, PaganMegan said:

The thing is that if you WERE in the playtest then all the bad feeling comes roaring back up as you read the new rules.

 

This is worth noting - humans are emotional creatures, and that playtest brought some rather strong negative emotions. (I go with playtest as one word, and have since around 1980 - when I was a playtester.)

 

It is based, in part, on pattern recognition - in other words - 'once burned, twice shy'.

 

It is possible that those folks that did not suffer through the horrible playtest - and therefor do not have the negative experience - will have a more positive experience, unencumbered by previous play throughs.

 

I will admit, I did not bother reading the copy of the new core rules that was floating around - even the person that bought it was none too happy with it - and he hadn't bothered with the playtest.

 

Megan telling me that they kept the craptastic character generation was enough to justify never spending the money. Too bad, so sad.

 

It was also enough to tell me that they were ignoring the playtesters from day one - until half of their remaining playtesters quit over Resonance.

 

This was not a healthy playtest. Rather than expanding as word of mouth spread, it shrank.

 

Last I checked, B-a-M! still had twelve softbound copies of the Playtest version, and six hardbound copies. And what looks like two dozen of the new Core rulebooks - with no sign of any of them moving. ::(:

 

By contrast the PF1 Beta Playtest rulebooks were in short supply.

 

PF2 could, in theory, be following the same pattern as 5e - which started off dead slow in regards to sales, but has been gaining momentum.

 

But I rather suspect it is a complete dud.

 

So, sticking with PF1 - which is a game that I am familiar with, and have very positive emotional memories pertaining to the game.

 

For the record - until Advanced Player's Guide I pretty much just thought of PF1 as a minor tweak of the 3.X architecture. With APG it became its own game. PF2 has not yet had a release that elevates it from its beginning. So, there is still hope.

 

The Auld Grump

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, TaleSpinner said:

OK, so in reading the last several pages, all the people complaining still seem to be complaining about the damn playtest.  You know what, I DON"T REALLY CARE about the playtest anymore.  I don't want opinions about the playtest.  Now I want to hear from people who have played the actual game, now that it is out.  

 

I get that some are deeply offended by the playtest; I recommend getting over it and moving on.  If you are that mad, don't play.  But as someone interested in making an informed decision about the new version, I really want to hear about the new version, not a years old grudge about a play test that may or may not be similar to the real thing.

 

I'd love to hear how the actual game compares to the playtest that was so horrible,  Scratch that, no, I wouldn't; I'd love to hear how the actual game compares to PF1 as that is what I know (I really don't care about the playtest one way or the other), but as far as I can tell, no one other than Thes has gotten that far yet.

 

Fair enough. My post was sort of by way of explaining why I hadn't checked out the final rule set of PF2; I didn't really have any reason to. 

 

However, given Thes' kind offer, I'm willing to give it another peek with someone who does like the new system. I'll take a look at the PF2 rules online before ReaperCon and try making a character at least, so I can give a more helpful review later.

 

Regardless of my own personal feelings about Pathfinder or even Paizo itself, I really do want both to do well; the loss of either would be a big blow to the hobby in general. 

 

Huzzah! 

--OneBoot :D 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sylverthorne said:

 

Kobold Press, Dreamscarred Press. .. quite probably Frog God, but they're still on probation from our quarter. I'd expect others, for sure. Necromancers of the Northwest put out some material for PF1; might be worth looking for them.

 

Frog God have so far said that they have no plans for and no interest in PF2.

 

They've actually shown more willingness to continue to support PF1 than they have to start supporting PF2, based on their kickstarters still sometimes having PF1 options. Given that they're offloading all of their existing PF1 stock at fire sale prices, I think that's a short-lived thing as well. But the question of PF2 support has come up on the kickstarters multiple times, with the same answer each time - Nope.

Edited by Unruly
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, it would have to be a fairly amazing upgrade or HeroLab would have to quit support for PF1 (which they say they have no intention to do so) for me to change at this point.  Personally, I like PF1 a lot; the parts I don't like, I have fixed with home rules.  This is why I really wanted to know what is so different in the new one, because I would change, but only with really good reason.  From what I am hearing, that reason doesn't exist. Thank you.

 

Sorry if I was too harsh in my last post; I was just getting frustrated. I apologize.

 

I'll still have to buy all the Bestiaries since I need them for sculpting references (I have the bestiaries of all major versions of D&D and PF).

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, PaganMegan said:

Is it playtest or play test?

Is there where I playfully say it depends on your version of autocorrupt on your phone? ^_^

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious how PF1 compares to Starfinder? I've only played a demo game of Starfinder, but in general I didn't see much difference between it and 3.5. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Crowley said:

I'm curious how PF1 compares to Starfinder? I've only played a demo game of Starfinder, but in general I didn't see much difference between it and 3.5. 

 

On release, there wasn't much difference between PF1 and 3.5. Over time that difference grew greater. I won't play 3.5 again. (I just dropped out of a 3.5 campaign because I found it too frustrating. And because the group dynamic wasn't much fun, which, to be fair, was the bigger reason.)

 

Starfinder feels very much to me like a halfway point between PF1 and PF2. It does some of the same things, but much less radically. Which isn't surprising, given that Paizo seems to have thought of Starfinder as a sidetrack playtest for many of the ideas in PF2.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't really participate in the playtest - I barely get to play my regular Pathfinder game as it is. That said, I flipped through the playtest book and it looked disturbingly like 4e to me. I played the playtest game in 2018 Origins and was confused why the cleric I played had about 4 different pools of limited resources for different abilities. I hated the shield mechanics, which seem to have stuck around. Not thrilled with how overly powerful rogues become with the abolishment of AoOs, which is also something that's stuck around. I never experienced Resonance, so I don't even know what all that is about. I read some of what they had to say about character creation, didn't really love the "backgrounds determine stats" approach as it necessitates loads of extra backgrounds being made to cover options, or forces players to have to pick backgrounds that don't fit with their characters to build the stats they actually want for their character. I played the 2019 demo at Origins, and most of my complaints from the 2018 were still there. I didn't love it. Certain parts of it are alright, but I don't think it's for me or my group.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Disciple of Sakura said:

didn't really love the "backgrounds determine stats" approach

I'm actually quite fond of this approach, but I just don't see it working well in the long run with class & level systems.   If you're going to go and make it fully determine stats, you should go all in and do it like Traveller does it, where character generation is a game in and of itself.   But that would be a completely different game, and then for PF, you end up with the 4e problem - it may be a good system, but it doesn't feel like the same game as previous editions. 
 
5e's approach is reasonable. A couple extra perks, but nothing unwieldy, nor too much change to the underlying system. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kristof65 said:

I'm actually quite fond of this approach, but I just don't see it working well in the long run with class & level systems.   If you're going to go and make it fully determine stats, you should go all in and do it like Traveller does it, where character generation is a game in and of itself.   But that would be a completely different game, and then for PF, you end up with the 4e problem - it may be a good system, but it doesn't feel like the same game as previous editions. 
 
5e's approach is reasonable. A couple extra perks, but nothing unwieldy, nor too much change to the underlying system. 

I was fine with PF1's Traits system, even though so many people just wound up with the +2 to Initiative trait by default. Honestly, the problem with any sort of background-to-mechanical-stats approach is that then people turn their background story into an optimization process as well as everything else. It can be problematic.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, haldir said:

 

5e character creation is perfect for me, being a AL DM I get new player needing character. It takes up 20-30 mins of game time but the rest of the players BS with each other anyways, so no worries.

 

I can get people a character in 2E in 20-30 minutes. Now, it might not be min maxed, but it will be close to their concept. They can then pour over the rules later and find the sic combos that make Pathfinder great. Lol 

 

--- background determine one step.of the stat.generation, and only one of the two stat bumps it gives you. 

 

For example: (I'm making one up cause I don't have my rule book in fornt of me) you have a background of pizza driver, they will say that one of the two boosts you get from this background has to be in either in Dex or int. And then the other you use how you like. So in reality it gives a +2 to a stat that even if it's not your prime stat is a stat you want a 12 in. (Or even a 10, if you took a racial flaw to that stat.) I would by no way say backgrounds determine stats.

 

Race does a little, but only as much as it always has. Everything else is putting the +2 where ever you want.

Edited by Thes Hunter
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Disciple of Sakura said:

I was fine with PF1's Traits system, even though so many people just wound up with the +2 to Initiative trait by default. Honestly, the problem with any sort of background-to-mechanical-stats approach is that then people turn their background story into an optimization process as well as everything else. It can be problematic.

 

I usually look at turning my optimization process into a back story. ^_^

 

Which sounds like a tossed off joke, but it actually works quite well. Restrictions make stories, and sometimes oddly combined restrictions make the most interesting stories.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Thes Hunter said:

--- background determine one step.of the stat.generation, and only one of the two stat bumps it gives you. 

 

For example: (I'm making one up cause I don't have my rule book in fornt of me) you have a background of pizza driver, they will say that one of the two boosts you get from this background has to be in either in Dex or int. And then the other you use how you like. So in reality it gives a +2 to a stat that even if it's not your prime stat is a stat you want a 12 in. (Or even a 10, if you took a racial flaw to that stat.) I would by no way say backgrounds determine stats.

 

Race does a little, but only as much as it always has. Everything else is putting the +2 where ever you want.

That doesn't sound too far off from the way 5e does it.   Which makes me wonder - is it possible that PF2 is suffering from an issue 5e has regarding backgrounds?

When my friends & I picked up our first 5e PHB, backgrounds frustrated us.  The problem with backgrounds was the order the rules tell you to do them in - roll your stats, pick your race, pick your class, then pick your background. This leads to a lot of either wasted proficiency choices, or going back and redoing your choices for your class.  We finally realized that 5e PC generation goes so much smoother if roll your stats, choose your race, then choose your background before you pick your class. It's not that any of it's difficult, it's that it's presented in such a way that makes things more difficult than it needs to be. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what Paizo will do if sales remain in freefall?

 

Going by two folks in the book trade (not game stores - for what it is worth, just two different book stores that have RPG sections) it is doing much, much worse than 4e at this point in its production cycle. This should be the point when sales are at their strongest - but....

 

Sample size small enough to be extremely unreliable, but it is what I have right now. (B-a-M! and B&N - both chain stores.)

 

The Auld Grump - yeah, a whopping two data points... not much to base a projection on.

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Maglok
      Some people might call it Minivember, though technically I had 23 days of vacation and just wanted to paint a mini every day. Some were finishing older minis, some entirely new, some were the size of a nailclipping. I present, my Minivember.
       

       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       

    • By Unit04
      My friend is playing a fighter in a Pathfinder game, so I decided to take a break from my Batman game to paint up a figure for her, though I decided to paint two.  
       
      I asked her what her favorite color is, and she said "Blue", so I painted up a mini with lots of blue.  If I paint her again I think I'd pick out the fleur-de-lis in a different color, to make it stand out some more.  
       

    • By Neatpete
      The new Kickstarter got me motivated to dig up some old bones. I realized after all these years I have never painted a dragon, so I got after it. Rather happy with how this came out.
       

    • By Floyd Ryan
      This is Barzillai Thrune, the major villain from the Pathfinder Hell's Rebels campaign. I painted him as a service to my DM because we are currently playing that campaign and my intuition tells me that it will be needed some day. The mini is extremely faithful to the original Wayne Reynolds art and I also used the same colour scheme, but I regret using my standard unimaginative "block of acryl paste" base. With the burning mace the mini would be excellent for OSL experiments and there are two fine versions of it on the forum with lighting effects, but I thought to late about the idea and was reluctant to add it to the almost finished mini.
       
       




    • By Floyd Ryan
      So here is my take on the famous Pathfinder Sorceress Seoni. I mostly kept to the original color scheme but wanted to find out how a green dress would look.
       
       



  • Who's Online   23 Members, 1 Anonymous, 32 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...